nothing wrong with your summary, except it is based on a popularity contest based on some arbitrary counting of arbitrary google searches. even without checking their measurement method (which is pretty dumb, imho), you should see at first glance that there is something fundamentally wrong with a result of [16.15% java vs 4.84% Visual Basic].
i find your post more insightful than funny (it's kind of sad per-se that stating the obvious seems insightful in this context). guess the funny part is "Oracle sucks, we're porting everything to C#.". yeah, made me giggle too:)
sorry, no. coopèration is just a skill that gives competitive advantage. competition is stil the drive.
The purpose of a democracy is to make great people
neither. the purpose of democracy (as laid out in ancient greece) was to "cooperate" to get over constant and bloody power struggles amongst the elites, so they could happily concentrate on their business (financed by massive slavery, btw, which was the vast majority of the population and for which democracy had absolutely no meaning). it hasn't changed that much, just in the forms.
i agree a sound democracy would have a fair "potential" to make great people, but we haven't been there yet in human history. i guess you need way more great people than is currently available to make great people.
they have been suckeing your money for... decades, and they were french all the time.
we knew that all those estimates that equated total maintenance costs of windows and linux were total bullshit. now that budgets are being dramatically cut this continued felony (someone might call it a "business model") just dissapears, it's natural. too bad for ms.
i would say it's good for society, but i doubt it has really learnt anything from this.
I abide that you are theoretically right, even if it isn't a pure formal proof. however in practice it's all pretty irrelevant. if the imaginary attack is clinical paranoia, the proposed validation test is no less. in practice you only need 1 compromised compiler at a time. to great effect!
Assuming that there are booby traps in commonly distributed compiled binaries is being cautious, but thinking that the same group of attackers compromised GCC binaries, MSVC binaries, and the Symbolics C stuff in identical way is rapidly approaching clinical paranoia. You can throw a few other obscure systems into the mix and cross-check all the results.
If all the binaries you end up with behave identically for a large number of binaries and a large number of inputs, you ought to be able to end up with an arbitrarily high confidence that your new binary is trustworthy.
that's statistics, may be acceptable but still far from "evidence". you don't need to compromise all, just one that has enough spread to be a good vector, but in a way that defeats your verification drill. my guess is it would depend on how representative of infinity your "large number of binaries and a large number of inputs" is.
no, it's just that what a few knew and a bunch more of us suspected is now in the media. for what it's worth; you shouldn't expect much intelligent debate in the media anyway. however, now there's no valid excuse anymore for not wanting to know. that could be a good thing. it could also be bad because generalized opposiion could bring the elites to drop the masquerade and go full psycho.
you know that Microsoft researches several years ago published about the exact crypto weakness people now are surprised about?
But X compiled by (X compiled by X) should be identical to X compiled by (X compiled by Y).
that proof still doesn't rule out malicious behaviour. the expression "overwhelmingly unlikely to be booby-trapped" is not only embarrassingly unscientiffic but also naive because it simply assumes a compromised compiler can't be that smart. fail. if you want to be sure, you have to analyze the generated machine code, and good luck with that.
folks, don't get me wrong, i'm totally for free software and transparency. only like 1% of the sw i directly use is closed, and i use sw a lot, but i feel not a bit more secure because of that. all these "e2e crypto will fix it" and "diverse double compiling" statements are so misleading. they may be interesting tools, but assuming they get at the root of the problem is just delusional.
Crypto fixes that for you. End-to-end crypto under the control of the user, that is. Which is "hard" so the majority will say they don't care in order to hide incompetence.
e2e crypto may be you current best bet, it may be even appropiate for many situations, but it doesn't "fix" anything. nothing can fix loss of trust, and crypto is known to have been tampered too. so unless you are a once-in-a-species genius and do everything yourself, all you can expect is some mitigation or hope that you go unnoticed.
I dare anyone, especially after mr. Snowden's revelations, to contradict mr. Stallman's points.
his points have actually little to do with snowden's revelations. if you want to be in control you need also absolute control over the hardware (down to every circuit in every chip in every device). open software alone will never protect you from government snooping or from corps selling you as big data meat. and even if you could have fully open hardware, you would need a society that knows how to use it and cares. thats unrealistic. the problem snowden reveals is sociopolitical, not technolgical. it's about actual power abuse, not about the possible means for abuse.
although i agree with most of his points because of the intrinsic value open software has for society, mixing both issues is shortsighted, sounds a lot like usual fear propaganda, just in another context.
We should be surprised? Porn has driven more technological advances than most will ever care to admit or acknowledge.
not nearly as much as warfare.
regarding the news, if merely bypassing some local communication api layers yields such a signifficant performance boost, one has to wonder what the decision-making algorithms actually do. obligatory: what could possibly go wrong?
But if you want ice or enlightenment or windowmaker or kde, or classic gnome, they are all immediate options with just a few clicks.
not really true, depending on your choice you might have a bit of a hassle there. at least 12.04 lts, which is the only distro allowed at my work:/ they left a lot of confusion around regarding gtk config utilities, libs, traditional themes, specially if you want to preserve gnome settings. oh, and getting rid of that retarded scrollbar thing, for instance (some ui designers just deserve slow and painful death). ok, you might be lucky, but i thought "it just works" was one of the core ideas of ubuntu. linux for human beings, remember?
and that's exactly where canonical screwed totally up. unity would be all and good if you could happyly throw shove it away and get back to classic seamlessly if you so desired. but you couldn't. switching to xubuntu or even another distro was the most straightforward way out left. i'm glad to hear this was addressed in later releases but for me ubuntu fired itself into oblivion with 12.04, a release that defied it's most important (stated) purpose, no doubt. many thanks for the long ride, anyway.
"then used the information to access their external e-mail accounts when they were left open... "
TFA:
‘Your Permission’ The actions were taken even though LinkedIn assures its users when they log in, “We will not e-mail anyone without your permission,” the plaintiffs said.
i always had the impression that those profiles i randomly go to see on linkedin had to correspond to braindead suckers. linkedin just gave confirmation.
1- Manage MILESTONES, not MINUTES 2- Quality problems are why there is a design spec and QA engineering. If these are too "old school" for your management and methodology, expect the beating to continue. That means code coverage and quality will be measured by your customers.;-)
i guess it's because i'm oldschool developer that i have never given a darn fuck about "productivity".
"Here in the future, musicians and record companies complain they can't make a living any more. The problem isn't piracy — it's competition. There is too much music and too many musicians, and the amateurs are often good enough for the public. This is healthy for culture, not so much for aesthetics, and terrible for musicians.
This means art becomes entirely a folk enterprise: the sound of the culture talking amongst itself. This is lovely in its way, but all a bit fucked if you aspire to higher quality in your subcultural group.
The market is not perfectly efficient.
The problem then is not genius works, but finding, and making, them in your chosen aesthetic vocabulary
really, i was gonna say "cry me a river" and move on but, after a closer look... this is not a hoax, right? what a continued display of retardeness!!! such idiotic people actually do exist and they write on the internets. is that news?
Java had a problem with the JCP not working, then the Sun to Oracle transition, and Apache getting elbowed out. It's a miracle a new version even came out in the first place.
C# never had a community process to worry about, and moved forward all the time. It has had closures, lambdas, function points etc. for quite a while now.
the availability of fancy code constructs (like closures and lambdas) is the last concern when it comes to choosing a software development platform. they may be a "nice to have" but what you want to priotitize is reliability, efficience, maintainability, stability, availability of tools, that sort of things.
and of course platform indpendence. so what has c# to do with this at all? it isn't even an option if you value platform independence. parent cited groovy and scala. well, there you have some fancyness that you can get for free *on top* of java, while all the pros and advantages of the java platform still apply. it's a different issue where it really just comes down to perceived language fancyness. opinionism, if you ask me, but everything else is the same.
Jvm/core libraries updates are very welcome - but the language level changes are just too late.
too young to die but too old to java? late for what?
If somebody can run cutting edge, (s)he probably long time ago switched to Groovy (http://groovy.codehaus.org/), Scala (http://www.scala-lang.org/) or Xtend (http://www.eclipse.org/xtend/).
which are java emmiters... so what's your point? you seem to sugest that while it's ok for you to "cut edge" thanks to some platform, it's not ok for that same platform to "cut edge" too? why? if you are worried about competition, don't: it's oracle! let them do their thing. they'll be around for a while anyway.
i'd argue that the sample is too specific. you don't really need extra commited support at the database implementation level unless you have very strong mission critical requirements, and that's the exception, not the norm.
oss enterprise solutions are that much mature already, most business routinely run oss databases, appservers, reporting and developement tools and even operating systems without incurring in extra support cost. if you really need id, it's there, and of course it will be expensive, because it implies commitment. (just with oss you don't have an agent calling you every other month to tell you how desperately you need it).
That may be true, but if people are working for free, the project can suffer from an inadequate amount of labor and the existing workers might have trouble getting stuff done in addition to their day job.
this does happen in medium-big software companies too. not because of lack of resources, but because of poor management or just because "existing workers might have trouble getting stuff done *right* because of 'other priorities' ".
[Citation Needed]. Among industry watchers the two most popular RDBMS systems are considered to be Oracle and Microsoft's SQL Server. MySQL is in the same ballpark, but it certainly doesn't have a large lead.
well, in terms of price/performance ratio mysql/mariaDB simply cannot be beaten:D
bytheway, as someone who grew up in engineering using db2, I can tell you oracle and sqlserver are two steaming piles of expensive crap. if you use them, you are doing it wrong, you should look for more value for your money.
Slashdot Mirror
i was referring to the data, actually.
nothing wrong with your summary, except it is based on a popularity contest based on some arbitrary counting of arbitrary google searches. even without checking their measurement method (which is pretty dumb, imho), you should see at first glance that there is something fundamentally wrong with a result of [16.15% java vs 4.84% Visual Basic].
one can also make a solid case that that data is random bullshit.
i find your post more insightful than funny (it's kind of sad per-se that stating the obvious seems insightful in this context). guess the funny part is "Oracle sucks, we're porting everything to C#.". yeah, made me giggle too :)
who said java was dying (apart from some of the dozens of clueless tech-tabloids regularly cited on /.) ?
Our default is to cooperate, not compete.
sorry, no. coopèration is just a skill that gives competitive advantage. competition is stil the drive.
The purpose of a democracy is to make great people
neither. the purpose of democracy (as laid out in ancient greece) was to "cooperate" to get over constant and bloody power struggles amongst the elites, so they could happily concentrate on their business (financed by massive slavery, btw, which was the vast majority of the population and for which democracy had absolutely no meaning). it hasn't changed that much, just in the forms.
i agree a sound democracy would have a fair "potential" to make great people, but we haven't been there yet in human history. i guess you need way more great people than is currently available to make great people.
they have been suckeing your money for ... decades, and they were french all the time.
we knew that all those estimates that equated total maintenance costs of windows and linux were total bullshit. now that budgets are being dramatically cut this continued felony (someone might call it a "business model") just dissapears, it's natural. too bad for ms.
i would say it's good for society, but i doubt it has really learnt anything from this.
I still like the fact that there is a company behind the download - its a trust issue
you just blew my mind.
well, we're obviously on different tracks, here.
I abide that you are theoretically right, even if it isn't a pure formal proof. however in practice it's all pretty irrelevant. if the imaginary attack is clinical paranoia, the proposed validation test is no less. in practice you only need 1 compromised compiler at a time. to great effect!
thank you.
Assuming that there are booby traps in commonly distributed compiled binaries is being cautious, but thinking that the same group of attackers compromised GCC binaries, MSVC binaries, and the Symbolics C stuff in identical way is rapidly approaching clinical paranoia. You can throw a few other obscure systems into the mix and cross-check all the results.
If all the binaries you end up with behave identically for a large number of binaries and a large number of inputs, you ought to be able to end up with an arbitrarily high confidence that your new binary is trustworthy.
that's statistics, may be acceptable but still far from "evidence". you don't need to compromise all, just one that has enough spread to be a good vector, but in a way that defeats your verification drill. my guess is it would depend on how representative of infinity your "large number of binaries and a large number of inputs" is.
This isn't validation of crazy paranoia.
no, it's just that what a few knew and a bunch more of us suspected is now in the media. for what it's worth; you shouldn't expect much intelligent debate in the media anyway. however, now there's no valid excuse anymore for not wanting to know. that could be a good thing. it could also be bad because generalized opposiion could bring the elites to drop the masquerade and go full psycho.
you know that Microsoft researches several years ago published about the exact crypto weakness people now are surprised about?
source?
But X compiled by (X compiled by X) should be identical to X compiled by (X compiled by Y).
that proof still doesn't rule out malicious behaviour. the expression "overwhelmingly unlikely to be booby-trapped" is not only embarrassingly unscientiffic but also naive because it simply assumes a compromised compiler can't be that smart. fail. if you want to be sure, you have to analyze the generated machine code, and good luck with that.
folks, don't get me wrong, i'm totally for free software and transparency. only like 1% of the sw i directly use is closed, and i use sw a lot, but i feel not a bit more secure because of that. all these "e2e crypto will fix it" and "diverse double compiling" statements are so misleading. they may be interesting tools, but assuming they get at the root of the problem is just delusional.
Crypto fixes that for you. End-to-end crypto under the control of the user, that is. Which is "hard" so the majority will say they don't care in order to hide incompetence.
e2e crypto may be you current best bet, it may be even appropiate for many situations, but it doesn't "fix" anything. nothing can fix loss of trust, and crypto is known to have been tampered too. so unless you are a once-in-a-species genius and do everything yourself, all you can expect is some mitigation or hope that you go unnoticed.
I dare anyone, especially after mr. Snowden's revelations, to contradict mr. Stallman's points.
his points have actually little to do with snowden's revelations. if you want to be in control you need also absolute control over the hardware (down to every circuit in every chip in every device). open software alone will never protect you from government snooping or from corps selling you as big data meat. and even if you could have fully open hardware, you would need a society that knows how to use it and cares. thats unrealistic. the problem snowden reveals is sociopolitical, not technolgical. it's about actual power abuse, not about the possible means for abuse.
although i agree with most of his points because of the intrinsic value open software has for society, mixing both issues is shortsighted, sounds a lot like usual fear propaganda, just in another context.
We should be surprised? Porn has driven more technological advances than most will ever care to admit or acknowledge.
not nearly as much as warfare.
regarding the news, if merely bypassing some local communication api layers yields such a signifficant performance boost, one has to wonder what the decision-making algorithms actually do. obligatory: what could possibly go wrong?
switch to my preference, which I will not state, as it is even less popular than unity.
prrrrleaseeeee!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53AP7fGGPoA#t=17
But if you want ice or enlightenment or windowmaker or kde, or classic gnome, they are all immediate options with just a few clicks.
not really true, depending on your choice you might have a bit of a hassle there. at least 12.04 lts, which is the only distro allowed at my work :/ they left a lot of confusion around regarding gtk config utilities, libs, traditional themes, specially if you want to preserve gnome settings. oh, and getting rid of that retarded scrollbar thing, for instance (some ui designers just deserve slow and painful death). ok, you might be lucky, but i thought "it just works" was one of the core ideas of ubuntu. linux for human beings, remember?
and that's exactly where canonical screwed totally up. unity would be all and good if you could happyly throw shove it away and get back to classic seamlessly if you so desired. but you couldn't. switching to xubuntu or even another distro was the most straightforward way out left. i'm glad to hear this was addressed in later releases but for me ubuntu fired itself into oblivion with 12.04, a release that defied it's most important (stated) purpose, no doubt. many thanks for the long ride, anyway.
Password = 'password'?
"then used the information to access their external e-mail accounts when they were left open ... "
TFA:
‘Your Permission’
The actions were taken even though LinkedIn assures its users when they log in, “We will not e-mail anyone without your permission,” the plaintiffs said.
i always had the impression that those profiles i randomly go to see on linkedin had to correspond to braindead suckers. linkedin just gave confirmation.
--
brave weird world, today
1- Manage MILESTONES, not MINUTES ;-)
2- Quality problems are why there is a design spec and QA engineering. If these are too "old school" for your management and methodology, expect the beating to continue. That means code coverage and quality will be measured by your customers.
i guess it's because i'm oldschool developer that i have never given a darn fuck about "productivity".
it's a brave weird world, nowadays ...
maybe not bad, just pervert.
(everything god-related tends to be, somehow ...)
David Gerard writes
"Here in the future, musicians and record companies complain they can't make a living any more. The problem isn't piracy — it's competition. There is too much music and too many musicians, and the amateurs are often good enough for the public. This is healthy for culture, not so much for aesthetics, and terrible for musicians.
This means art becomes entirely a folk enterprise: the sound of the culture talking amongst itself. This is lovely in its way, but all a bit fucked if you aspire to higher quality in your subcultural group.
The market is not perfectly efficient.
The problem then is not genius works, but finding, and making, them in your chosen aesthetic vocabulary
really, i was gonna say "cry me a river" and move on but, after a closer look ... this is not a hoax, right? what a continued display of retardeness!!! such idiotic people actually do exist and they write on the internets. is that news?
Too late, as in 'look at C#'
Java had a problem with the JCP not working, then the Sun to Oracle transition, and Apache getting elbowed out. It's a miracle a new version even came out in the first place.
C# never had a community process to worry about, and moved forward all the time. It has had closures, lambdas, function points etc. for quite a while now.
the availability of fancy code constructs (like closures and lambdas) is the last concern when it comes to choosing a software development platform. they may be a "nice to have" but what you want to priotitize is reliability, efficience, maintainability, stability, availability of tools, that sort of things.
and of course platform indpendence. so what has c# to do with this at all? it isn't even an option if you value platform independence. parent cited groovy and scala. well, there you have some fancyness that you can get for free *on top* of java, while all the pros and advantages of the java platform still apply. it's a different issue where it really just comes down to perceived language fancyness. opinionism, if you ask me, but everything else is the same.
Jvm/core libraries updates are very welcome - but the language level changes are just too late.
too young to die but too old to java? late for what?
If somebody can run cutting edge, (s)he probably long time ago switched to Groovy (http://groovy.codehaus.org/), Scala (http://www.scala-lang.org/) or Xtend (http://www.eclipse.org/xtend/).
which are java emmiters ... so what's your point? you seem to sugest that while it's ok for you to "cut edge" thanks to some platform, it's not ok for that same platform to "cut edge" too? why? if you are worried about competition, don't: it's oracle! let them do their thing. they'll be around for a while anyway.
i'd argue that the sample is too specific. you don't really need extra commited support at the database implementation level unless you have very strong mission critical requirements, and that's the exception, not the norm.
oss enterprise solutions are that much mature already, most business routinely run oss databases, appservers, reporting and developement tools and even operating systems without incurring in extra support cost. if you really need id, it's there, and of course it will be expensive, because it implies commitment. (just with oss you don't have an agent calling you every other month to tell you how desperately you need it).
That may be true, but if people are working for free, the project can suffer from an inadequate amount of labor and the existing workers might have trouble getting stuff done in addition to their day job.
this does happen in medium-big software companies too. not because of lack of resources, but because of poor management or just because "existing workers might have trouble getting stuff done *right* because of 'other priorities' ".
[Citation Needed]. Among industry watchers the two most popular RDBMS systems are considered to be Oracle and Microsoft's SQL Server. MySQL is in the same ballpark, but it certainly doesn't have a large lead.
well, in terms of price/performance ratio mysql/mariaDB simply cannot be beaten :D
bytheway, as someone who grew up in engineering using db2, I can tell you oracle and sqlserver are two steaming piles of expensive crap. if you use them, you are doing it wrong, you should look for more value for your money.